Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 152 (AP)

Mylavarapu Subba Rao v. Kollapalli Lakshmi

2006-02-08

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
ORDER The petitioners filed O.8.No.326 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the respondent, claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. They pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property, under two registered sale deeds, dated 13-08-1990, from one Smt. G.Annapurnamma and her two sons. Their complaint is that the respondent, who is the immediate neighbour on the southern side, is raising a construction, blocking the air and light through windows and ventilators, in the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the defendant, a document, dated 06-05-1989, is relied upon. The petitioner raised an objection as to the admissibility of that document. The trial Court overruled the same, through its order dated 14-10-2004. The petitioners challenge the said order. 2. Sri G.Radha Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document, in question, purports to recognize the title of the respondent on the property, on the southern side, and in that view of the matter, it requires registration. The second objection is that apart from Smt. G.Annapurnamma, her two sons were also the owners of the suit schedule property, before it was transferred to the petitioners and since the said document was executed by Smt. G. Annapurnamma alone, it is not binding upon the petitioners. The third objection is that the respondent cannot press the impugned document into service, unless she establishes her title through other independent documents. 3. Mr. Ch.Dhanunjaya, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the document, in question, is nothing but an undertaking given by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, to remove the windows, which were opened towards the property of the respondent. He contends that the document is not liable to be registered nor does it suffer from any other legal or factual infirmity. 4. In the suit filed by the petitioners, for the relief of perpetual injunction, the trial commenced. The dispute was as to whether it is competent for the respondent to raise a construction, on the southern side of the petitioners property, blocking the air and light through windows and ventilators. None of the parties has claimed any proprietary rights, over the property belonging to others. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was under obligation to prove her title over the property, in which the construction is being raised. 5. None of the parties has claimed any proprietary rights, over the property belonging to others. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was under obligation to prove her title over the property, in which the construction is being raised. 5. The respondent relied upon a document titled as "khararunama uttaram" dated 06-05-1989, said to have been executed by one Smt. G.Annapurnamma, one of the transferors of the petitioners. The recitals in the document are to the effect that Annapurnamma acknowledged that the husband of the respondent and two others are the owners of the property on the southern side of the property bearing D.No.9-7-1 and with the permission of her neighbours, she has put windows and ventilators to her house, on the southern side. She has also undertaken to remove the windows and ventilators, in case, any objection is raised by the husband of the respondent or other two persons named therein. 6. This document cannot be said to have resulted in transferring any existing interest in any immovable property. If the contents thereof are proved, it constitutes an undertaking to remove the windows or ventilators, as and when objected to, by the persons named therein. In a way, it can be said that it is a conditional acknowledgment of the limited rights of Annapurnamma, by the persons named therein, Law does not provide for registration of such documents. Therefore, Section 49 of the Registration Act does not get attracted. The document is admissible in evidence, though it is not registered. It is ultimately for the respondent to prove the contents of the document as well as establish its relevance. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.